The Changing Dynamics of Energy Conflict
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs Volume 3 Issue 2 The 9 Billion People Question: The Challenge of Global Resource Scarcity February 2015 From Scarcity to Abundance: The Changing Dynamics of Energy Conflict Michael T. Klare Follow this and additional works at: https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/jlia Part of the Agriculture Law Commons, Diplomatic History Commons, Energy and Utilities Law Commons, History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons, International and Area Studies Commons, International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, Political Science Commons, Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons, Rule of Law Commons, Social History Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons ISSN: 2168-7951 Recommended Citation Michael T. Klare, From Scarcity to Abundance: The Changing Dynamics of Energy Conflict, 3 PENN. ST. J.L. & INT'L AFF. 10 (2015). Available at: https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/jlia/vol3/iss2/4 The Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs is a joint publication of Penn State’s School of Law and School of International Affairs. Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs 2015 VOLUME 3 NO. 2 FROM SCARCITY TO ABUNDANCE: THE CHANGING DYNAMICS OF ENERGY CONFLICT Michael T. Klare* INTRODUCTION In November 2012, the International Energy Agency (IEA) triggered headlines around the world when it announced that the United States, by dint of its success in utilizing new extractive technologies, would likely overtake Saudi Arabia to become the world’s leading oil producer by 2020.1 At a time in which many analysts had come to believe that the world was facing an impending “peak” in global oil output followed by an irreversible decline,2 the IEA’s report was said to herald a new and unexpected era of hydrocarbon plenty. In commenting on the report, many analysts spoke in particular about the purported economic benefits of energy abundance, notably the prospect of new jobs and manufacturing activities.3 As the IEA indicated, however, the new energy bounty * Michael T. Klare, Five College Professor of Peace and World Security Studies, and director of the Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies (PAWSS) at Hampshire College. 1 International Energy Agency (IEA), WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2012 52, 157 (2012), http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WEO2012_free.pd f. 2 See, e.g., KENNETH S. DEFFEYES, HUBBERT’S PEAK: THE IMPENDING WORLD OIL SHORTAGE (2001); Robert L. Hirsch, The Inevitable Peaking of World Oil Production, 26 BULL. ATL. COUNCIL U.S. 1-9 (Oct. 2005). 3 See, e.g., Saudi America, WALL ST. J., Nov. 14, 2012, http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014241278873238947045781145911744 2015 Klare 3:2 has political and military implications. “This energy renaissance,” it declared, “has far-reaching consequences for energy markets, trade, and, potentially, even for energy security, geopolitics, and the global economy.”4 Energy security and geopolitics have, of course, played a pivotal role in international affairs for a very long time, ever since the development of oil-powered vehicles and weapons of war. As the demand for petroleum exploded, especially in the years during and after World War I, the major military and industrial powers fought with one another for control over the world’s handful of oil- producing areas. Gaining access to foreign oil supplies was also a major war aim of Germany and Japan during World II and a major concern of the United States during the Cold War era. After the Cold War, the United States continued to place a high priority on ensuring its access to foreign oil supplies, employing military force on several occasions to protect the oil flow from the Persian Gulf.5 The 2012 IEA statement suggested, however, that the well-established relationship between energy and geopolitics would be profoundly altered as a result of the current “energy renaissance.” As an energy-specific organization, the IEA did not offer its own prognosis on the geopolitical implications of its suggestive comment, except to note that we should expect a shift in the center of gravity of world oil and natural gas production from the Middle East to North America.6 Nevertheless, it is obvious from its analysis that this shift and other consequences of the “renaissance” will have profound implications for the foreign and security policies of both energy importing and exporting nations and for the prospects for 53074; Ed Crooks, U.S. Shale Gas Sparks a Chemical Revolution, FIN. TIMES, Dec. 17, 2012, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d1a183d2-40a3-11e2-aafa- 00144feabdc0.html#axzz3B4D6zQZy; Jim Motavalli, Natural Gas Signals a ‘Manufacturing Renaissance,’ N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 10, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/business/energy-environment/wider- availability-expands-uses-for-natural-gas.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. 4 IEA, supra note 1, at 74. 5 See generally MICHAEL T. KLARE, BLOOD AND OIL 26-55 (2004). 6 WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2012, supra note 1, at 74-80. 11 2015 Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs 3:2 conflict over oil and gas. In particular, policies aimed at securing the safe flow of oil from the Middle East to markets in the West—a source of repeated crisis and conflict in the past—are now being called into question, while disputes over new sources of energy, such as those in offshore areas and the Arctic, have gained fresh attention. More importantly, the very basis for energy-driven security policies— an expectation of perpetually inadequate supplies of hydrocarbons— appears to have been rendered invalid by the dramatic rise in global output, raising doubts about the future likelihood of wars over oil.7 Will conflict over energy supplies disappear in an era of oil and gas abundance? Or will it take new forms, governed by the changing geography of global supply and demand? Although it is still too early to provide a definitive answer to these questions, it is possible to detect several significant trends in energy geopolitics—all suggesting that the risk of conflict over oil and natural gas supplies will not disappear in an era of hydrocarbon abundance. This essay will trace the origins of energy geopolitics and attempt to show how it is being affected by the development of new production technologies. I. THE GEOPOLITICS OF SCARCITY The relationship between oil and geopolitics first arose during World War I when oil-powered weapons—tanks, planes, and submarines—first made their appearance on the battlefield and the major powers scoured the world for reliable sources of supply. With reserves limited and only a few major deposits then in production— mostly in the United States, Romania, Iran (then Persia), and Baku in the Czarist empire—the principal belligerents sought to control these 7 See generally Ed Crooks & Geoff Dyer, Energy Security: Strength in Reserve, FIN. TIMES, Sept. 5, 2013, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/916a6744-0f14-11e3- 8e58-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3BMCFD8uY; Daniel Yergin, America’s New Energy Security, WALL ST. J., Dec. 12, 2011, http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240529702044498045770689320269 51376. 12 2015 Klare 3:2 areas or deny their opponents access to them. After the war, the surviving great powers engaged in a competitive struggle to extend their sway in the major oil-producing areas, especially in the Persian Gulf area and the Caucasus.8 Many scholars believe that it was Winston Churchill who first grasped the geopolitical significance of oil and its association with the Persian Gulf. In 1912, as First Lord of the Admiralty, Churchill ordered the conversion of British warships from coal to oil propulsion in the belief that this would give them an advantage over Germany’s coal-powered ships in the event of war.9 Because Great Britain at that time did not possess domestic oil reserves of its own (the North Sea fields were not discovered until much later), Churchill determined that London must obtain a secure overseas source of oil under direct British authority. The most propitious option, he concluded, was to impose government control over the Anglo- Persian Oil Company (APOC, the forerunner of British Petroleum), which had secured a concession to promising reserves in southwestern Persia. As a result of his prodding, Parliament voted in 1914 to nationalize APOC and bring its Persian concession under London’s control. From that point onward, the protection of APOC’s concession area, and of British supply lines to the Persian Gulf (especially the Suez Canal), were viewed as matters of vital national security by the British government.10 The strategic aspect of the international competition for oil reserves continued to play a significant role in international relations after World War I and in the years leading up to the Second World War. The major European powers, possessing few domestic oil reserves of their own, focused much of their efforts on acquiring a foothold in the oil-bearing regions of the Middle East. This was the era of the San Remo Agreement of 1920, under which Britain obtained control over Iraq through a mandate from the League of 8 See DANIEL YERGIN, THE PRIZE: THE EPIC QUEST FOR OIL, MONEY & POWER 184-206 (2001) [hereinafter THE PRIZE]. 9 See generally GEOFFREY JONES, THE STATE AND THE EMERGENCE OF THE BRITISH OIL INDUSTRY 9–31 (1981). 10 Id. at 129–76; see also THE PRIZE, supra note 8, at 153–64. 13 2015 Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs 3:2 Nations.11 Meanwhile, Japan—a rising industrial power with a similar paucity of oil—harbored imperial ambitions over the Dutch East Indies, then the major producer in Asia. The need to secure overseas sources of oil played a significant role in the strategic planning of Germany and Japan, both of which sought to invade and conquer foreign producing areas in order to fuel their military forces and industrial systems.